Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

2805662

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    689

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    52

 Content Type 

Everything posted by 2805662

  1. 2805662
    We’re also “utterly in the pocket” of the US, and only one of three countries that has a bilateral defence trade cooperation treaty with the US (the others being UK & Canada). ROK is much more closely aligned with Australian interests than Germany, especially in regard to regional challenges. Who’s to say that the potential Hanwha facility wouldn’t be used for non-ADF customers? I agree that two medium-calibre turrets is a bad idea for the ADF. There doesn’t appear to be anything that would preclude the turret from whichever platform being backcast onto Boxer. After all, the Lance 2.0 is so different from Lance 1.0 that is a new turret from a supportability perspective. Rheinmetall missed a trick during Phase 2 negotiations by not making options for further quantities of Lance worthwhile for the Commonwealth. Had they done that, Lance would’ve likely been mandated as the turret solution, much like the EOS R400 is for the RWS. If the AS21 was to win, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s turret appeared on Boxer CRV for Block 2. After all, Boxer is modular, right?
  2. 2805662
    Sunk cost fallacy. All eggs in one basket isn’t smart. The German government has recent form in export control capriciousness.
  3. 2805662
    I think Hanwha’s Victorian presence is a given due to the SPH (AS9 & AS10) work package. “Not a single dollar invested” is one of those hyperbolic, unprovable statements that I habitually challenge because I loath them. Yes, Rheinmetall has developed the MILVEHCOE - after winning several substantial contracts. Defence paid handsomely for that investment. The Australian taxpayer footed the Bill for the MILVEHCOE, not Rheinmetall. There’s no reason that Hanwha (courtesy of the Australian taxpayer) could not make a similar or superior investment, were they to win a similar contract. Personally, I see capricious German export controls & their potential effect on Australian land combat power, to be a substantial risk to Australian army capability. Putting our eggs in one basket, with a government who’s foreign policies are frequently not aligned with ours, is potentially the dumbest thing that the Australian government could possibly do.
  4. 2805662
    Let’s wait for the formal announcement.
  5. 2805662
    Boxer begins amphib trials with ship to shore connectors.
  6. 2805662
    Yep. The dreaded Advice clause. Interesting, but has no standing from a criticality perspective.
  7. 2805662
    That looks like “notes to tenderers” not a requirement per se. I assume it’s importance is “important”.
  8. 2805662
    So, 54 rounds per minute for three minutes, or 162 rounds of an unspecified nature/target. Lance 1.0 has 120/80 ready round bin for 30x173mm, so, only 38 rounds remaining before the crew have to reload the ready round bins. That can take a while.
  9. 2805662
    Agreed. That’s why I said that there’s the possibility of a calibre upgrade - i.e. larger calibre hub - over the life of the L400 vehicles.
  10. 2805662
    Maybe, maybe not. Still, the platform will be fielded for 30-odd years. Plenty of time for ammunition improvements & upgrades to the calibre of the main armament itself.
  11. 2805662
    Yikes.
  12. 2805662
    Thanks for doing the leg work. I’ve deleted my copies of the RFT pack as I’ve moved on to other things. It’ll be interesting to see whether the MSSA as offered by Rheinmetall can satisfy the RWS functional requirements. It’ll also be interesting to see if the MSSA can supplant the RWS mandated (as GFx?) for L400-3 (the EOS R-400). With the retirement of the ASLAV, the Kongsberg RWS is likely to exit service. As such, the Australian Army can now consolidate its remote weapon stations down to the R-400 (on Bushmaster, Hawkei, Boxer, AS9/10 [as GFx?], and the L400-3 vehicles). Rheinmetall’s MSSA offering would have to be pretty compelling to shift the Commonwealth back away from a single, common RWS.
  13. 2805662
    Yikes.
  14. 2805662
    Yeah, understand the different roles & tasks of the vehicles to be acquired via phase, but thanks for the explanation. Happy to be corrected with the requirement number that would indicate that turreted Phase 3 variants require a RWS or have a remote weapon requirement. MSSA negatively affects the overall vehicle height as whilst the SEOSS sight head can retract, the MSSA cannot. Anecdotally, the safety case for even a static live fire of the MSSA for the phase 2 RMA couldn’t be completed as the software performance was unable to verified.
  15. 2805662
    *proposed to use the MSSA. The Commonwealth didn’t execute the MSSA option for phase 2 Lance turrets (Block 1 or 2), so no reason to think that they’d change their mind for this phase.
  16. 2805662
    Indeed. MSSA not optioned for Phase 2...round two is a different round, I guess.
  17. 2805662
    Definitely a lot of sheet metal on that thing.
  18. 2805662
    Some more, courtesy of Rheinmetall.
  19. 2805662
    No RWS requirement for the turreted vehicles. Doesn’t mean they’re not being offered, though!
  20. 2805662
    Lynx has received a coat of paint:
  21. 2805662
    Some bare hulls of AJAX variants, including annotations of armour steel.
  22. 2805662
    Nm
  23. 2805662
    A video of the opening of the integration centre in Australia.
  24. 2805662
    Not sure. I’ve heard that as well as “Lance 1.5” (wth?), so I’m waiting to see at this point.
  25. 2805662
    Can’t help, sorry. Bit of a mystery. The RWS won’t be Kongsberg, though.
×
×
  • Create New...